Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that table vs. index is the right level of
> abstraction for these functions, and that breaking it down further than
> that isn't all that helpful. We have the bottom-level information
> (per-fork relation size) available for those who really want the
> details.
>
Fair enough; this certainly knocks off all the important stuff already,
just wanted final sanity check opinion. This one is ready for a
committer to look at now. My test case seems to work fine with a
moderately complex set of things to navigate. The main think I'm not
familiar enough with to have looked at deeply is exactly how the FSM and
toast computations are done, to check if there's any corner cases in how
it navigates forks and such that aren't considered.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com
